Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Another New Ranger Variant

*Deleted by user*

 

[MoonSong]

Uh, yeah it is. Again, the paladin gets clerical spells. Just to the spells section and read how clerical magic works. It's right there in black and white, and not something fans just created out of the blue.

Clerical spells, including the druidic, are bestowed by the gods, so that the
cleric need but pray for a few hours and the desired verbal and somatic
spell components will be placed properly in his or her mind. First, second,
third, and even fourth level spells are granted to the cleric through
meditation and devout prayer. This spell giving is accomplished by the
lesser servants of the cleric's deity. Fifth, sixth, and seventh level spells can
be given to the cleric ONLY by the cleric's deity directly, not through some
intermediary source. Note that the cleric might well be judged by his or
her deity at such time, as the clerk must supplicate the deity for the
granting of these spells. While the deity may grant such spells full
willingly, a deed, or sacrifice, atonement or abasement may be required.
The deity might also ignore a specific spell request and give the cleric
some other spell (or none at all). Your Dungeon Master will handle this
considering a cleric's alignment and faithfulness to it and his or her deity.
Note that some cleric spells (and all druid spells) also require material
ingredients in order for the desired effect to take place. Such components
must be supplied by the cleric (or druid), as material is not bestowed.

I don't know what other conclusion you could come to, other than a paladin is a servant of the divine.

It says that cleric spells are bestowed by the divine, but it say nothing about anything else a paladin gets, if a paladin never reaches 9th level, he or she never needs to even pray for spells, and the lowest level spells are granted by meditation and devotion alone, so no serving any god until you get to fifth level spells, which a paladin never gets. And if we go that route, rangers are servants of the divine too, as they get druid spells...

 

[Kobold Stew]

PRIMEVAL AWARENESS

It was noted early on there are no longer spell slots to fuel primeval awareness:

Primeval Awareness is, what, once a day without spells to fuel it? I guess that's OK, as it's mainly a "ribbon" ability anyways since it doesnt give direction, closeness, and a ton of stuff will trip if anyways.

Rather than 1 min/day, I'd suggest WIS mod minutes per long rest -- it's not much of a difference (for, admittedly a "ribbon") but anything that incentivizes players to consider putting ability boosts in Wisdom as well as Strength or Dex is more likely to lead to a greater variety of builds, and therefore a more diverse play experience for different players. That, for me, should be a design goal, and in this case I think it's easy to achieve.

(Spirit companion also runs of Wisdom, and so there may be more at higher levels that would make this an worthwhile investment; as it stands, it seems not to be.)

 

[Hussar]

Not a big fan of the extra action round for the Ranger. That's gets a bit insane. A 5th level ranger, say a high dex ranger (not unlikely) shoots the baddy twice before initiative is even rolled, rolls initiative, wins, with his bonus action, drops his wolf and gains 2d6+Wis on his next two attacks, and then his dire wolf attacks, potentially hitting and knocking the baddy prone granting advantage to the rest of the party. That's a bit much for a 5th level PC no? I mean, 4d8+2(Dex)+4d6+2(Wis)+ whatever the wolf does is a bit much.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Uh, yeah it is. Again, the paladin gets clerical spells. Just to the spells section and read how clerical magic works. It's right there in black and white, and not something fans just created out of the blue.

A couple of points:

1.) I don't know about 1st edition, but in 2nd edition, paladins weren't tied to any particular religion. When they did penance, they were required to seek out a cleric of "a lawful good religion" and confess.

2.) Similarly, unlike clerics, paladins did not receive their spells from deities. For example, clerics could not regain spells above 2nd level in the phlogiston, because they were cut off from their power source (no planar linkages in the phlogiston), but paladin spells worked normally, just as did wizard spells, unless I am misreading the rules.

Point #1 is the crucial point in my opinion. It's the difference between being a holy warrior, like a Knight Templar, vs. being a warrior of a particular religion. Paladins are defined by their virtue and their ideals, not their religion. The PHB2 lists "Roland and the twelve peers of Charlemagne", Sir Galahad, and Sir Lancelot as iconic paladins. All of them are pious and virtuous; none of them is particularly religious in a sectarian way. A non-Christian paladin like Saladin (or an atheist like Sanya!) would be held to the same ideals as Sir Lancelot, and it doesn't matter if a fatwa says he should make wives of his captives by force--he will Do The Right Thing anyway and protect them like his own daughters.

Paladinhood is about strength of character, and virtue, not about what church you go to. (Not that polytheism in D&D is very coherent anyway.)

 

[mflayermonk]

A couple of points:
Paladinhood is about strength of character, and virtue, not about what church you go to. (Not that polytheism in D&D is very coherent anyway.)

But you did have to tithe. Oh, painful tithe.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It says that cleric spells are bestowed by the divine, but it say nothing about anything else a paladin gets, if a paladin never reaches 9th level, he or she never needs to even pray for spells, and the lowest level spells are granted by meditation and devotion alone, so no serving any god until you get to fifth level spells, which a paladin never gets. And if we go that route, rangers are servants of the divine too, as they get druid spells...

I think you need to read that again. Lowest level spells are granted by "lesser servants of the cleric's deity." The religious relationship precondition is directly there. Otherwise by your logic, the cleric doesn't need a deity either until they get access to 5th level spells? That idea is just silly.

Either way, your claim that it was fancom that tied paladins to being tied to a deity except 4e is not accurate, since there is plenty of evidence that does tie them to a deity in 1e. They have to ask for forgiveness for their sins (a sin by definition is religiously tied), they have to tithe part of their wealth to religion, and their spell casting is granted by a deity or deity's direct servant. That alone is plenty of information to infer that paladins are holy warriors, and not something fans just came up with on their own. There are no less than three core aspects of a being a paladin that directly tie the class to religion, so saying that it's only the fans who created that relationship seems clearly implausible.

*edit* I'll also point out that if a paladin wasn't tied to religion, why would they be required to seek out a clergy member to confess sins? If it was only about being lawful and just, why couldn't they seek out any lawful good person? Why would it HAVE to be a member of a religion? A "sin" is a concept of religion. There are plenty of good and just atheists that can atone for mistakes and not consider them sins (because they don't believe in sin).

And why do they have to tithe to a religious institution if it's not about religion, but only good deeds? Why not donate to an orphanage? Why does it have to be a religious organization?

Sorry, but all the evidence there points to the fact that paladins are religious in some way. Otherwise those three requirements make no sense at all.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A couple of points:

1.) I don't know about 1st edition, but in 2nd edition, paladins weren't tied to any particular religion. When they did penance, they were required to seek out a cleric of "a lawful good religion" and confess.

2.) Similarly, unlike clerics, paladins did not receive their spells from deities. For example, clerics could not regain spells above 2nd level in the phlogiston, because they were cut off from their power source (no planar linkages in the phlogiston), but paladin spells worked normally, just as did wizard spells, unless I am misreading the rules.

Point #1 is the crucial point in my opinion. It's the difference between being a holy warrior, like a Knight Templar, vs. being a warrior of a particular religion. Paladins are defined by their virtue and their ideals, not their religion. The PHB2 lists "Roland and the twelve peers of Charlemagne", Sir Galahad, and Sir Lancelot as iconic paladins. All of them are pious and virtuous; none of them is particularly religious in a sectarian way. A non-Christian paladin like Saladin (or an atheist like Sanya!) would be held to the same ideals as Sir Lancelot, and it doesn't matter if a fatwa says he should make wives of his captives by force--he will Do The Right Thing anyway and protect them like his own daughters.

Paladinhood is about strength of character, and virtue, not about what church you go to. (Not that polytheism in D&D is very coherent anyway.)

You know there was D&D before 1989, right? Like more than a decade. And if you're basing your argument that paladins didn't get their spells from a deity based on a weird thing out of 2e Spelljammer, than that's a pretty weak reason, especially considering for more than a decade prior to that, the rules do infer that all clerical spells are tied to a deity.

And did you just say that the the knights of the round table weren't particularly religious? You do know what the holy grail is, right? It's the cup used by Jesus. Pretty safe to say they were a fairly religious group. And the versions that the D&D personalities were based off (most latter writings of the legends) were infused with heavy doses of Christian references.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I like the idea of the ranger having double hit dice... for recovery purposes only. A ranger should lose a battle of attrition with a barbarian if they just stand there and swing at each other, but if the ranger can back off, take a short rest, and recover, he gets an edge. That says "skirmisher" perfectly to me.

Skirmisher's Stealth is the most distinctive new feature in this variant, but isn't stealth supposed to be the rogue's specialty? Between this ability and Ambuscade, the new class seems like God's two-level gift to assassins more than it seems like a ranger. I think the 3E scout's Skirmish ability comes much closer to the mark, encouraging a unique mobile fighting style.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think the 3E scout's Skirmish ability comes much closer to the mark, encouraging a unique mobile fighting style.

I was about to make this exact suggestion. I think extra damage or extra attack after movement makes far more sense for a "skirmish ranger." Combine that with an ability that lets them get an extra movement at the start of combat, for positioning, and an ability to go first without necessarily going extra, and I think it'd capture the feel better and be more mechanically sound.

 

[Jester David]

Not a big fan of the extra action round for the Ranger. That's gets a bit insane. A 5th level ranger, say a high dex ranger (not unlikely) shoots the baddy twice before initiative is even rolled, rolls initiative, wins, with his bonus action, drops his wolf and gains 2d6+Wis on his next two attacks, and then his dire wolf attacks, potentially hitting and knocking the baddy prone granting advantage to the rest of the party. That's a bit much for a 5th level PC no? I mean, 4d8+2(Dex)+4d6+2(Wis)+ whatever the wolf does is a bit much.

That's also once per day. Compare it to the wizard and a fireball.